Tibial Cancellous Bone Grafting in Jaw Reconstruction: 10 Years of Experience in <scp>T</scp>aiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of proximal tibia as a donor site has been applied in jawbone reconstruction since the 1990s. Catone and colleagues described a U-shaped incision made on the iliotibial tract during tibial cancellous bone procurement for maxillofacial reconstruction in 1992. We used a curvilinear incision on the iliotibial tract in lateral approach in our tibial cancellous bone harvesting procedure. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this retrospective study are to describe our modified lateral approach for procuring cancellous graft from the proximal tibia and to assess the bone volume, donor site morbidity, and associated complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive jawbone reconstructions utilizing autogenous tibial cancellous bone grafts in 78 patients from March 1998 through March 2008 were reviewed. The patient group consisted of 45 males and 33 females, ages 18 to 76 (average age 36.1 ± 12.3). Minimal postoperative follow-up period was 3 months. Unlike the traditional U-shaped trapdoor incision on the iliotibial tract, our curvilinear incision was made almost parallel to the fibers of that tract. RESULT: Only mild complications were observed at donor sites, including temporary paresthesia, gait disturbance, and an unpleasant scar. The average procured graft volume was 17.8 mL. We also present the first case of reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects of up to 6 to 7 cm lengthwise by tibial cancellous bone grafting, which has not previously been reported in the English literature. CONCLUSION: The modified incision on the iliotibial tract allowed access to obtain an equally good bone volume from the lateral aspect of the proximal tibia, and it rendered wound closure much easier than the procuring techniques described in the earlier literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".